Aug. 12, 2026
Killer Mom Trial: TikTok Testimony Debate As Medical Experts Refute Postpartum Psychosis Defense
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Another full day of testimony continued on Tuesday in the Lindsay Clancy trial, but it began with a debate between the defense and prosecution over a potential defense witness. Clancy’s attorney wants to call a social worker to the stand who posted on TikTok about the hospital Lindsay admitted herself to in the weeks leading up to killing her three children. While the judge considers that request, jurors heard from two nurse practitioners who treated Clancy and maintained that while she talked of wanting to die, they did not believe she was suicidal and still do not believe she suffered from postpartum psychosis.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Wednesday, August twelfth, and it was once again another day of tense testimony and the mom murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. And today the big question is will we get TikTok testimony? And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Given the era that we're in, we shouldn't be surprised Rope. There's the debate about whether or not to put a TikToker on the stand.
00:00:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a little head scratching, but it was interesting. There was a hearing on Tuesday before the jury was back in the courtroom. And yes, the defense wants to call someone who they saw on TikTok dissing the hospital, McLain Hospital that Lindsay Clancy admitted herself to in the weeks leading up to the deaths of her three children. They said it shouldn't get the five star review that prosecutors have been give it essentially through testimony, and they want durors to hear that it was not the place that prosecutors are trying to present that it was.
00:01:09
Speaker 1: That kind of makes sense to a certain degree. Even if you don't agree that it should be allowed, you can understand why he might want to make the argument, there have been some folks up there I'm talking about this was a glorious place where she got great treatment. He's trying to make the point that, nah, it wasn't necessarily on the up and up and had good staffing. But Robes I was surprised that the judge is entertaining the TikToker because he was making the argument, guys, can we find another way, like this is relevant information, but is this the best way you can come up with to get it on the record.
00:01:44
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly what the judge said, but he didn't rule out allowing the defense to call Emily Thorndike to the stand. And it is it is interesting just to hear why and how the defense contacted her. Yet they saw her TikTok, and she apparently has been outraged because she is watching the trial like the rest of us. And look, she's a licensed clinical social worker. She no longer works at McLean Hospital, but she worked there for seven years, so here she is a former worker who left just before Lindsay Clancy was actually admitted and treated there, and she's watching the trial like the rest of us, and she's posting videos on TikTok, saying this place is not the way it's being presented by the prosecution. She said she couldn't stand the lies and misrepresentation about the.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: Hospital, and we have right. She did not reach out no to them. She was just posting and doing her thing.
00:02:40
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And so the defense attorney Reddington admitted to the judge, Yeah, I sent one of my guys over to find her and to talk to her, and she agreed to testify about her observations over the seven years she worked there, specifically about the staffing that is in place during holidays, which is when Lindsay Clancy admitted herself on January one.
00:03:05
Speaker 1: He's trying to make the point here that she didn't get great care, like the best people weren't on staff, there weren't enough people on staff. He's been going out this argument for a few days here now.
00:03:16
Speaker 3: Yes, and so the judge. I liked what the judge said.
00:03:19
Speaker 2: He said, this isn't Trip Advisor, saying he's not going to allow if he does allow her to actually testify, he's not going to allow her to give it a two star rating versus the five star rating.
00:03:30
Speaker 3: He kept saying it's not a five star residents or a hospital.
00:03:35
Speaker 2: And I just thought it was kind of funny that the judge decided to stay in social media context and say this isn't Trip Advisor.
00:03:42
Speaker 1: But he makes the point they're trying to get out, bro, can somebody just say and he even asked the prosecution how many people were on staff? Can we just get that, get on the record and move on. But the prosecution doesn't seem to want to do that, so the defense is trying to find another way. Look, this witness, this is weird to me that. I mean, maybe he should consider it and take his time, but to have just some rando. And one of the bigger points ropes is she clearly has a dog in the fight. Yes, yes, she's been watching the entire trial.
00:04:16
Speaker 3: Correct, So look a lot of times.
00:04:19
Speaker 2: And this is a little bit of a difficulty when you do have a trial like this live stream for anybody and everybody to watch. Typically, if you're going to be someone who testifies or who was on the witness list, you're not supposed to be in the courtroom. You're not supposed to be watching what other people are saying, because it shouldn't impact or influence your testimony. So to know that this woman has been watching the trial, is a former employee of this hospital and has clear opinions, it seems like she would not be someone who would be allowed to testify.
00:04:55
Speaker 1: There's another way to get the information they want. I know she has an opinion, but they're looking for facts because it sounds like this woman is about to get up there and say, mmmm, let me tell.
00:05:03
Speaker 3: You exactly exactly.
00:05:06
Speaker 2: And so look, maybe the defense is now trying to find a way to get the staffing list who was there to explain perhaps the lack of care they claim Lindsay Clancy received while she was there for those five days.
00:05:19
Speaker 3: But he did say he was going to consider it.
00:05:21
Speaker 2: He didn't have to make a decision right away because this witness, if she were allowed, wouldn't come until much later in the trial. So back on the stand, I thought this was so interesting. I want to get your take. Julie Paul, who had been up for a little while, not that long on Monday, and had been questioned by the prosecutors. She was a psychiatric nurse practitioner who briefly saw Lindsay Clancy. She was back on the stand. She's the one who had a connection to Lindsey Clancy's ex mother in law. And he gets up there, the defense attorney, and we're waiting for more fireworks here he is he's going to go cross examine this woman, and basically he just thanked her for her care of Lindsay and rested and didn't really ask any questions. I thought this was interesting because it was in such sharp contrast to his cross examination of the previous witness, doctor Jennifer Tuffs. And in a way, could it be that he's showing the jury. Yeah, I only hold people accountable who need to be held accountable. I'm not just going to attack healthcare workers who treated Lindsay Clancy.
00:06:26
Speaker 3: No, I reserve that for people who deserve it.
00:06:29
Speaker 1: And also not going to waste your time. I mean, he has done this, and the reason maybe we are a little ahead in this as far as scheduling goes his robes. There's been a bunch of witnesses. I got it went so fast because the prosecution asked him something of ten minutes and he said no questions and moved on. He is making his points with the people he needs to make the points with, so I at this point, robes trust him that there was something to get out of that witness, he would have gotten it.
00:06:56
Speaker 3: And that's the whole point he is.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: I think he's been highly effective because it's not like he's just throwing everything at the jurors in the hopes that something will stick or something will land. He is being very deliberate in who he goes after and who he completely leaves alone, who he doesn't even ask a question to, so that when he does go in hard on someone, you're paying attention.
00:07:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's not You're right, it has not been gratuitous. He has. We've been seen a lot of defense attorneys sometimes or just prosecutors as well, and you're like, what is the point of what you're saying? Like you build up all that, you build up, build up, you just present the evidence, but they don't actually give you a nice bow or package he has delivered at Just follow his story. It doesn't matter where, how slow it's going, or how irrelevant it seems. At the end, he's gonna go boom, and you're gonna say, Okay, it makes sense, ropes. He has gained your trust and your attention that this is going somewhere.
00:07:57
Speaker 2: If he's talking exactly and so I think he does that when he goes for it and when he chooses not to. I just thought that was a striking difference. Now, next up on the stand, and again there were only two witnesses, because when they do take their time with the witness, they take their time. And so Rebecca Jalatta, who was a psychiatric nurse practitioner, is a psychiatric nurse practitioner. And the interesting thing is she took over for Julie Paul. So Julie Paul had to leave, she'd't have to leave, she just she switched positions. She moved to a different state, and so Rebecca Jalatta took over the care of Lindsay Clancy once Paul left the practice. And look, this was all about mostly the medications that were prescribed and the adjustments that were needed.
00:08:44
Speaker 1: Roll you came to me and said, how is it possible this many doctors are prescribing this many.
00:08:49
Speaker 2: I was so confused, Like, yeah, you have a psychiatrist that we heard Jennifer Tuff's who got eviscerated on the stand by the defense, but all of the drugs that she was prescribing. Then you have nurse practitioners just prescribing drugs. Then you have hospital workers who, when she has been admitted prescribing other drugs. It is mind numb mean to hear all of these different drugs.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: But aren't they supposed to have records or whatever. They can pull it up and they know exactly what she's on. You would hope, Robes, that's going on, but it sounds gratuitous, It sounds over the top, and it's getting confusing to me. Robes, I don't know. Certainly the jury is paying closer attention than I am. But Rose and you talk about prescribing this one with this condition and these symptoms at this dosage, but then if she has symptoms of this other thing, you can prescribe the same drug with the lesser dosage. I am so mixed up about what can and should be prescribed for what. I don't know if she was given too much or too little. I don't know if she took too much or she was taking too little. By her own devices, I don't know.
00:10:00
Speaker 2: Yes. And so the prosecution, when they had Jelata on the stand, was trying to zero in on this idea that she believed that Lindsay Clancy might be bipolar and She made it very clear when she suggested that that Patrick, who was at one of those meetings, was very defensive and said, my wife is not bipolar, and Lindsay said nothing. But the reason why that was important is because that's why she wanted her to get off of zoloft, wanted to wiener off Atavan, which is habit forming recommended value, wanted prozac. It was just I was overwhelmed. One of the things that I thought was interesting. She testified that Lindsay Clancy sent her a message. She actually both of these nurse practitioners, said that Lindsay Clancy was able to They had each other's cell phone, so they were in close contact. They were available to her, and Clancy sent her a text message saying, quote, I also just feel concerningly numb right now.
00:10:58
Speaker 3: Like I have no emotion whatsoever.
00:11:00
Speaker 2: I feel like I'm going to die and I don't care what do I do about this? And what the prosecution was getting from Jelata was that Jelata, even despite that, did not think this was suicidal ideation because she said she didn't have a plan. Yes, she might have had persistent thoughts of suicide, but she was not in a planning stage, and that's where apparently mental health providers draw the line between calling nine one one and thinking someone might actually follow through.
00:11:35
Speaker 3: They need to hear that you've got a plan in place.
00:11:37
Speaker 2: Didn't realize that was part of the evaluation, but I did think she said Clancy always showed clear linear thinking and advocated for herself throughout and never reported having a plan to kill herself.
00:11:52
Speaker 1: Again, that might be something commonplace in any doctor or psychiatrists out there listening. We're going, yeah, this is how it goes. Well, he's stunning again to be a juror possibly to hear that, Like, there's a weird fine line, like this woman's saying she's having thoughts of suicide, but I don't act on it unless she tells me. The way I plan to do it is to It was a weird back and forth in court.
00:12:19
Speaker 2: And it was certainly an opening for the defense when it came to cross examinations. No, this was all during direct testimony by the prosecutor, and they were putting this into place. They were acknowledging she had sent texts, and then you had this nurse practitioner explaining why that isn't considered suicidal ideas.
00:12:40
Speaker 1: But he drove this point home, is what I'm thinking.
00:12:42
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, yes, So when we come back, yes, sorry, no, you know that Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Reddington was ready for his cross examination. When we come back, we will tell you what he had to say and how things got real fiery at the end of it all. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. Yes, the defense was ready for Rebecca Jalatta when he was able to cross examine her. After we heard yes that she believed that Lindsay Clancy was not suicidal and certainly not homicidal, and look we had I thought this was really interesting. He started directing Jalata, the nurse practitioner, into the manic signs that Lindsay was displaying that she was unable to stop worrying that she wasn't aware that Lindsay Clancy ran a five K in the middle of all of this, despite protests from others and even her own husband Brooks.
00:13:52
Speaker 1: I fell out the chair again. He's making points of you know what, he's not even saying. This information is important. He's telling them and to hear the people treating her go. I had no idea about that, and yes, that would have been incredibly relevant. What see, I didn't realize ropes. If a woman in that condition and a woman under that care, woman with that medication, woman who had just given running and that physical exertion is a problem, they did not want her doing this.
00:14:22
Speaker 3: But she's not.
00:14:22
Speaker 2: Sleeping, Robes, So you're not sleeping, you're running a five K. You have persistent thoughts of suicide, and you're unable to stop worrying about everything.
00:14:35
Speaker 3: That's mania, that was strainia.
00:14:37
Speaker 1: This was a striking moment for it and.
00:14:39
Speaker 3: You yes, it is.
00:14:40
Speaker 2: And you can see the defense attorney setting this up that she in fact was bipolar and if she in fact was bipolar, which when you gave her some of the medications that doctors prescribed for her because they missed the signs of mania that contributed to her developing postpartum psychosis.
00:15:02
Speaker 3: It's all coming in to.
00:15:07
Speaker 2: Into plain sight and you can see where the defense is going through the cross examination, and he's doing it expertly.
00:15:14
Speaker 3: It's really fascinating to watch him do this.
00:15:17
Speaker 1: I don't know what the threshold we hear reasonable doubt, like, what do they have to weigh and measure to decide whether or not. They're going with not guilty by reason of insanity, because if you're just balancing out these two cases that have been made so far, who do you get who do you believe? Do I really believe that this woman was good to go according to these psychiatrists? Am I really supposed to believe that ropes? He has put so many holes in her.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Care that and that was where he then moved toward to next because then he went off on her on Jelata because she took it vacation. Granted, y'all it was Christmas, but he said to her, you went on vacation and you left Lindsey Clancy to quote unquote fend for herself. And he is obviously implying that she misdiagnosed her, as did every other psychiatric expert in her life, because they missed the signs of mania, they missed the suicide hotline calls, they missed all of these things that were going on because either they didn't ask, they didn't follow up, they didn't follow through.
00:16:34
Speaker 3: And he really landed. He was very heavy handed.
00:16:39
Speaker 2: On her about not following through about her hospitalization, not seeing it through. It was just like, yeah, okay, sure, try this drug, try this drug, try this drug. And when she did not agree with him that intrusive thoughts of suicide were a fre frequent theme, obviously that set him off. But you can see these these psychiatric medical professionals all saying for the prosecution that they did not believe even though she talked of suicidal thoughts, that she was actually suicidal, and so upon redirect, you have the prosecution going up to this witness saying, you know, did you see Clancy as having postpartum psychosis? And she says no, that's the final question. Boom, prosecution, Hell, yeah, nope. The defense jumps in and says, seems like Clancy had it, didn't she Obviously the prosecutor screams objection, and then he just says, I retract the question.
00:17:44
Speaker 1: You know, I heard it already, and I heard it because that, in that moment was the same thing I wanted to get up and yell. He was this. This guy is using some kind of colloquial, down home, relatable mannerisms and speech robes that's just common sensical and brilliant. At the same time, he's look, I just this is a tough case robes, and he has laid this thing out. He has done a good service to her no matter what ends up happening.
00:18:15
Speaker 3: He absolutely has.
00:18:17
Speaker 2: And while yes he is performative and entertaining the hey, there is an absolute authentic passion that brings it home every time. It's you believe he believes everything he's saying, and he has such an honest, heartfelt defense of this woman you actually are rooting for him because you feel his authenticity while he's defending her.
00:18:44
Speaker 1: Look his the stuff he is doing, how he's putting on the case robes would be solid legal strategy no matter what defense attorney was putting it on. You add his age, his experience, and how he's going about it, it's really putting this over the top. Really as a defense. And we have watched a lot he.
00:19:06
Speaker 2: Is one of the best defense attorneys I have ever witnessed in action in my career period.
00:19:14
Speaker 3: So, yeah, that was it.
00:19:16
Speaker 2: And so it feels like almost every day he gets the last boom. Even though the prosecution tries, he always gets a little boom in at the end. Even if he has to say never mind or question withdrawn, he still gets his point in and it lands.
00:19:33
Speaker 1: I know you've heard this from attorneys and whatnot over the years as well. They all they almost they appreciate. We don't care if you object, and it's sustained Jerry already heard it. It won't be in the record, but they will remember this moment and it's already in their head, and that's all they want sometimes, and he has done that on a few, very few occasions. But when it happens like you did yesterday, oh never mind.
00:19:55
Speaker 2: Right, And look, it goes back to the old adage you don't even you don't remember what people say, but you remember.
00:20:02
Speaker 3: How they made you feel.
00:20:03
Speaker 1: Oh, and he.
00:20:04
Speaker 2: Has been an expert at that, in both actually and what he said and how he makes the jurors feel. So yes, we're expecting another full day of testimony. Look, at one point last week they were saying they thought the prosecution could rest as early as Monday or Tuesday.
00:20:18
Speaker 3: Clearly that did not happen.
00:20:20
Speaker 2: So once again, we don't know how many more witnesses the prosecution plans to call today, but they certainly do have more.
00:20:26
Speaker 3: So look, they could rest today, but they might not.
00:20:30
Speaker 2: And the judge did end the day on Tuesday telling jurors that they are on schedule. So they're not necessarily running ahead, but they're certainly not running behind. And yes, much of that is attributed to the defense attorney making very specific choices about who he cross examines and for how long.
00:20:50
Speaker 1: We will and again we have to did you get a sense of how long this might take this morning to figure out? Are they avoid or this TikToker?
00:20:58
Speaker 3: Not sure if that's happening. Is that happening this morning?
00:21:00
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that.
00:21:03
Speaker 2: It needed to happen right away because that TikToker, if allowed to testify, wouldn't testify till much later. So he hasn't said when that hearing. But yes, they do plan to her. I do believe they are bringing her in at least outside of the jury's presence, to see what she might actually say before the judge decides whether or not she'll be allowed to testify to anything at all.
00:21:26
Speaker 1: What's your prediction.
00:21:27
Speaker 2: I don't think she's going to make I don't think she's going to make the cut. It wouldn't be worth it, and there clearly would be other ways for the defense to bring in. Just how many folks were on staff while Lindsay Clancy was there, versus how many people are typically there outside of a holiday weekend, so that evidence will likely come in, but perhaps from a different source.
00:21:48
Speaker 3: So we'll continue to watch.
00:21:50
Speaker 2: Today, trial I guess resumes nine am Eastern Time. Once again, they're in Massachusetts. We always appreciate you listening to us everyone. I made me roboch alongside t. J.
00:22:00
Speaker 3: Holmes. We'll talk so
Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Wednesday, August twelfth, and it was once again another day of tense testimony and the mom murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. And today the big question is will we get TikTok testimony? And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. Given the era that we're in, we shouldn't be surprised Rope. There's the debate about whether or not to put a TikToker on the stand.
00:00:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a little head scratching, but it was interesting. There was a hearing on Tuesday before the jury was back in the courtroom. And yes, the defense wants to call someone who they saw on TikTok dissing the hospital, McLain Hospital that Lindsay Clancy admitted herself to in the weeks leading up to the deaths of her three children. They said it shouldn't get the five star review that prosecutors have been give it essentially through testimony, and they want durors to hear that it was not the place that prosecutors are trying to present that it was.
00:01:09
Speaker 1: That kind of makes sense to a certain degree. Even if you don't agree that it should be allowed, you can understand why he might want to make the argument, there have been some folks up there I'm talking about this was a glorious place where she got great treatment. He's trying to make the point that, nah, it wasn't necessarily on the up and up and had good staffing. But Robes I was surprised that the judge is entertaining the TikToker because he was making the argument, guys, can we find another way, like this is relevant information, but is this the best way you can come up with to get it on the record.
00:01:44
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly what the judge said, but he didn't rule out allowing the defense to call Emily Thorndike to the stand. And it is it is interesting just to hear why and how the defense contacted her. Yet they saw her TikTok, and she apparently has been outraged because she is watching the trial like the rest of us. And look, she's a licensed clinical social worker. She no longer works at McLean Hospital, but she worked there for seven years, so here she is a former worker who left just before Lindsay Clancy was actually admitted and treated there, and she's watching the trial like the rest of us, and she's posting videos on TikTok, saying this place is not the way it's being presented by the prosecution. She said she couldn't stand the lies and misrepresentation about the.
00:02:34
Speaker 1: Hospital, and we have right. She did not reach out no to them. She was just posting and doing her thing.
00:02:40
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And so the defense attorney Reddington admitted to the judge, Yeah, I sent one of my guys over to find her and to talk to her, and she agreed to testify about her observations over the seven years she worked there, specifically about the staffing that is in place during holidays, which is when Lindsay Clancy admitted herself on January one.
00:03:05
Speaker 1: He's trying to make the point here that she didn't get great care, like the best people weren't on staff, there weren't enough people on staff. He's been going out this argument for a few days here now.
00:03:16
Speaker 3: Yes, and so the judge. I liked what the judge said.
00:03:19
Speaker 2: He said, this isn't Trip Advisor, saying he's not going to allow if he does allow her to actually testify, he's not going to allow her to give it a two star rating versus the five star rating.
00:03:30
Speaker 3: He kept saying it's not a five star residents or a hospital.
00:03:35
Speaker 2: And I just thought it was kind of funny that the judge decided to stay in social media context and say this isn't Trip Advisor.
00:03:42
Speaker 1: But he makes the point they're trying to get out, bro, can somebody just say and he even asked the prosecution how many people were on staff? Can we just get that, get on the record and move on. But the prosecution doesn't seem to want to do that, so the defense is trying to find another way. Look, this witness, this is weird to me that. I mean, maybe he should consider it and take his time, but to have just some rando. And one of the bigger points ropes is she clearly has a dog in the fight. Yes, yes, she's been watching the entire trial.
00:04:16
Speaker 3: Correct, So look a lot of times.
00:04:19
Speaker 2: And this is a little bit of a difficulty when you do have a trial like this live stream for anybody and everybody to watch. Typically, if you're going to be someone who testifies or who was on the witness list, you're not supposed to be in the courtroom. You're not supposed to be watching what other people are saying, because it shouldn't impact or influence your testimony. So to know that this woman has been watching the trial, is a former employee of this hospital and has clear opinions, it seems like she would not be someone who would be allowed to testify.
00:04:55
Speaker 1: There's another way to get the information they want. I know she has an opinion, but they're looking for facts because it sounds like this woman is about to get up there and say, mmmm, let me tell.
00:05:03
Speaker 3: You exactly exactly.
00:05:06
Speaker 2: And so look, maybe the defense is now trying to find a way to get the staffing list who was there to explain perhaps the lack of care they claim Lindsay Clancy received while she was there for those five days.
00:05:19
Speaker 3: But he did say he was going to consider it.
00:05:21
Speaker 2: He didn't have to make a decision right away because this witness, if she were allowed, wouldn't come until much later in the trial. So back on the stand, I thought this was so interesting. I want to get your take. Julie Paul, who had been up for a little while, not that long on Monday, and had been questioned by the prosecutors. She was a psychiatric nurse practitioner who briefly saw Lindsay Clancy. She was back on the stand. She's the one who had a connection to Lindsey Clancy's ex mother in law. And he gets up there, the defense attorney, and we're waiting for more fireworks here he is he's going to go cross examine this woman, and basically he just thanked her for her care of Lindsay and rested and didn't really ask any questions. I thought this was interesting because it was in such sharp contrast to his cross examination of the previous witness, doctor Jennifer Tuffs. And in a way, could it be that he's showing the jury. Yeah, I only hold people accountable who need to be held accountable. I'm not just going to attack healthcare workers who treated Lindsay Clancy.
00:06:26
Speaker 3: No, I reserve that for people who deserve it.
00:06:29
Speaker 1: And also not going to waste your time. I mean, he has done this, and the reason maybe we are a little ahead in this as far as scheduling goes his robes. There's been a bunch of witnesses. I got it went so fast because the prosecution asked him something of ten minutes and he said no questions and moved on. He is making his points with the people he needs to make the points with, so I at this point, robes trust him that there was something to get out of that witness, he would have gotten it.
00:06:56
Speaker 3: And that's the whole point he is.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: I think he's been highly effective because it's not like he's just throwing everything at the jurors in the hopes that something will stick or something will land. He is being very deliberate in who he goes after and who he completely leaves alone, who he doesn't even ask a question to, so that when he does go in hard on someone, you're paying attention.
00:07:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's not You're right, it has not been gratuitous. He has. We've been seen a lot of defense attorneys sometimes or just prosecutors as well, and you're like, what is the point of what you're saying? Like you build up all that, you build up, build up, you just present the evidence, but they don't actually give you a nice bow or package he has delivered at Just follow his story. It doesn't matter where, how slow it's going, or how irrelevant it seems. At the end, he's gonna go boom, and you're gonna say, Okay, it makes sense, ropes. He has gained your trust and your attention that this is going somewhere.
00:07:57
Speaker 2: If he's talking exactly and so I think he does that when he goes for it and when he chooses not to. I just thought that was a striking difference. Now, next up on the stand, and again there were only two witnesses, because when they do take their time with the witness, they take their time. And so Rebecca Jalatta, who was a psychiatric nurse practitioner, is a psychiatric nurse practitioner. And the interesting thing is she took over for Julie Paul. So Julie Paul had to leave, she'd't have to leave, she just she switched positions. She moved to a different state, and so Rebecca Jalatta took over the care of Lindsay Clancy once Paul left the practice. And look, this was all about mostly the medications that were prescribed and the adjustments that were needed.
00:08:44
Speaker 1: Roll you came to me and said, how is it possible this many doctors are prescribing this many.
00:08:49
Speaker 2: I was so confused, Like, yeah, you have a psychiatrist that we heard Jennifer Tuff's who got eviscerated on the stand by the defense, but all of the drugs that she was prescribing. Then you have nurse practitioners just prescribing drugs. Then you have hospital workers who, when she has been admitted prescribing other drugs. It is mind numb mean to hear all of these different drugs.
00:09:14
Speaker 1: But aren't they supposed to have records or whatever. They can pull it up and they know exactly what she's on. You would hope, Robes, that's going on, but it sounds gratuitous, It sounds over the top, and it's getting confusing to me. Robes, I don't know. Certainly the jury is paying closer attention than I am. But Rose and you talk about prescribing this one with this condition and these symptoms at this dosage, but then if she has symptoms of this other thing, you can prescribe the same drug with the lesser dosage. I am so mixed up about what can and should be prescribed for what. I don't know if she was given too much or too little. I don't know if she took too much or she was taking too little. By her own devices, I don't know.
00:10:00
Speaker 2: Yes. And so the prosecution, when they had Jelata on the stand, was trying to zero in on this idea that she believed that Lindsay Clancy might be bipolar and She made it very clear when she suggested that that Patrick, who was at one of those meetings, was very defensive and said, my wife is not bipolar, and Lindsay said nothing. But the reason why that was important is because that's why she wanted her to get off of zoloft, wanted to wiener off Atavan, which is habit forming recommended value, wanted prozac. It was just I was overwhelmed. One of the things that I thought was interesting. She testified that Lindsay Clancy sent her a message. She actually both of these nurse practitioners, said that Lindsay Clancy was able to They had each other's cell phone, so they were in close contact. They were available to her, and Clancy sent her a text message saying, quote, I also just feel concerningly numb right now.
00:10:58
Speaker 3: Like I have no emotion whatsoever.
00:11:00
Speaker 2: I feel like I'm going to die and I don't care what do I do about this? And what the prosecution was getting from Jelata was that Jelata, even despite that, did not think this was suicidal ideation because she said she didn't have a plan. Yes, she might have had persistent thoughts of suicide, but she was not in a planning stage, and that's where apparently mental health providers draw the line between calling nine one one and thinking someone might actually follow through.
00:11:35
Speaker 3: They need to hear that you've got a plan in place.
00:11:37
Speaker 2: Didn't realize that was part of the evaluation, but I did think she said Clancy always showed clear linear thinking and advocated for herself throughout and never reported having a plan to kill herself.
00:11:52
Speaker 1: Again, that might be something commonplace in any doctor or psychiatrists out there listening. We're going, yeah, this is how it goes. Well, he's stunning again to be a juror possibly to hear that, Like, there's a weird fine line, like this woman's saying she's having thoughts of suicide, but I don't act on it unless she tells me. The way I plan to do it is to It was a weird back and forth in court.
00:12:19
Speaker 2: And it was certainly an opening for the defense when it came to cross examinations. No, this was all during direct testimony by the prosecutor, and they were putting this into place. They were acknowledging she had sent texts, and then you had this nurse practitioner explaining why that isn't considered suicidal ideas.
00:12:40
Speaker 1: But he drove this point home, is what I'm thinking.
00:12:42
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, yes, So when we come back, yes, sorry, no, you know that Lindsay Clancy's defense attorney Reddington was ready for his cross examination. When we come back, we will tell you what he had to say and how things got real fiery at the end of it all. Welcome back everyone to Amy and TJ. Yes, the defense was ready for Rebecca Jalatta when he was able to cross examine her. After we heard yes that she believed that Lindsay Clancy was not suicidal and certainly not homicidal, and look we had I thought this was really interesting. He started directing Jalata, the nurse practitioner, into the manic signs that Lindsay was displaying that she was unable to stop worrying that she wasn't aware that Lindsay Clancy ran a five K in the middle of all of this, despite protests from others and even her own husband Brooks.
00:13:52
Speaker 1: I fell out the chair again. He's making points of you know what, he's not even saying. This information is important. He's telling them and to hear the people treating her go. I had no idea about that, and yes, that would have been incredibly relevant. What see, I didn't realize ropes. If a woman in that condition and a woman under that care, woman with that medication, woman who had just given running and that physical exertion is a problem, they did not want her doing this.
00:14:22
Speaker 3: But she's not.
00:14:22
Speaker 2: Sleeping, Robes, So you're not sleeping, you're running a five K. You have persistent thoughts of suicide, and you're unable to stop worrying about everything.
00:14:35
Speaker 3: That's mania, that was strainia.
00:14:37
Speaker 1: This was a striking moment for it and.
00:14:39
Speaker 3: You yes, it is.
00:14:40
Speaker 2: And you can see the defense attorney setting this up that she in fact was bipolar and if she in fact was bipolar, which when you gave her some of the medications that doctors prescribed for her because they missed the signs of mania that contributed to her developing postpartum psychosis.
00:15:02
Speaker 3: It's all coming in to.
00:15:07
Speaker 2: Into plain sight and you can see where the defense is going through the cross examination, and he's doing it expertly.
00:15:14
Speaker 3: It's really fascinating to watch him do this.
00:15:17
Speaker 1: I don't know what the threshold we hear reasonable doubt, like, what do they have to weigh and measure to decide whether or not. They're going with not guilty by reason of insanity, because if you're just balancing out these two cases that have been made so far, who do you get who do you believe? Do I really believe that this woman was good to go according to these psychiatrists? Am I really supposed to believe that ropes? He has put so many holes in her.
00:15:49
Speaker 2: Care that and that was where he then moved toward to next because then he went off on her on Jelata because she took it vacation. Granted, y'all it was Christmas, but he said to her, you went on vacation and you left Lindsey Clancy to quote unquote fend for herself. And he is obviously implying that she misdiagnosed her, as did every other psychiatric expert in her life, because they missed the signs of mania, they missed the suicide hotline calls, they missed all of these things that were going on because either they didn't ask, they didn't follow up, they didn't follow through.
00:16:34
Speaker 3: And he really landed. He was very heavy handed.
00:16:39
Speaker 2: On her about not following through about her hospitalization, not seeing it through. It was just like, yeah, okay, sure, try this drug, try this drug, try this drug. And when she did not agree with him that intrusive thoughts of suicide were a fre frequent theme, obviously that set him off. But you can see these these psychiatric medical professionals all saying for the prosecution that they did not believe even though she talked of suicidal thoughts, that she was actually suicidal, and so upon redirect, you have the prosecution going up to this witness saying, you know, did you see Clancy as having postpartum psychosis? And she says no, that's the final question. Boom, prosecution, Hell, yeah, nope. The defense jumps in and says, seems like Clancy had it, didn't she Obviously the prosecutor screams objection, and then he just says, I retract the question.
00:17:44
Speaker 1: You know, I heard it already, and I heard it because that, in that moment was the same thing I wanted to get up and yell. He was this. This guy is using some kind of colloquial, down home, relatable mannerisms and speech robes that's just common sensical and brilliant. At the same time, he's look, I just this is a tough case robes, and he has laid this thing out. He has done a good service to her no matter what ends up happening.
00:18:15
Speaker 3: He absolutely has.
00:18:17
Speaker 2: And while yes he is performative and entertaining the hey, there is an absolute authentic passion that brings it home every time. It's you believe he believes everything he's saying, and he has such an honest, heartfelt defense of this woman you actually are rooting for him because you feel his authenticity while he's defending her.
00:18:44
Speaker 1: Look his the stuff he is doing, how he's putting on the case robes would be solid legal strategy no matter what defense attorney was putting it on. You add his age, his experience, and how he's going about it, it's really putting this over the top. Really as a defense. And we have watched a lot he.
00:19:06
Speaker 2: Is one of the best defense attorneys I have ever witnessed in action in my career period.
00:19:14
Speaker 3: So, yeah, that was it.
00:19:16
Speaker 2: And so it feels like almost every day he gets the last boom. Even though the prosecution tries, he always gets a little boom in at the end. Even if he has to say never mind or question withdrawn, he still gets his point in and it lands.
00:19:33
Speaker 1: I know you've heard this from attorneys and whatnot over the years as well. They all they almost they appreciate. We don't care if you object, and it's sustained Jerry already heard it. It won't be in the record, but they will remember this moment and it's already in their head, and that's all they want sometimes, and he has done that on a few, very few occasions. But when it happens like you did yesterday, oh never mind.
00:19:55
Speaker 2: Right, And look, it goes back to the old adage you don't even you don't remember what people say, but you remember.
00:20:02
Speaker 3: How they made you feel.
00:20:03
Speaker 1: Oh, and he.
00:20:04
Speaker 2: Has been an expert at that, in both actually and what he said and how he makes the jurors feel. So yes, we're expecting another full day of testimony. Look, at one point last week they were saying they thought the prosecution could rest as early as Monday or Tuesday.
00:20:18
Speaker 3: Clearly that did not happen.
00:20:20
Speaker 2: So once again, we don't know how many more witnesses the prosecution plans to call today, but they certainly do have more.
00:20:26
Speaker 3: So look, they could rest today, but they might not.
00:20:30
Speaker 2: And the judge did end the day on Tuesday telling jurors that they are on schedule. So they're not necessarily running ahead, but they're certainly not running behind. And yes, much of that is attributed to the defense attorney making very specific choices about who he cross examines and for how long.
00:20:50
Speaker 1: We will and again we have to did you get a sense of how long this might take this morning to figure out? Are they avoid or this TikToker?
00:20:58
Speaker 3: Not sure if that's happening. Is that happening this morning?
00:21:00
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that.
00:21:03
Speaker 2: It needed to happen right away because that TikToker, if allowed to testify, wouldn't testify till much later. So he hasn't said when that hearing. But yes, they do plan to her. I do believe they are bringing her in at least outside of the jury's presence, to see what she might actually say before the judge decides whether or not she'll be allowed to testify to anything at all.
00:21:26
Speaker 1: What's your prediction.
00:21:27
Speaker 2: I don't think she's going to make I don't think she's going to make the cut. It wouldn't be worth it, and there clearly would be other ways for the defense to bring in. Just how many folks were on staff while Lindsay Clancy was there, versus how many people are typically there outside of a holiday weekend, so that evidence will likely come in, but perhaps from a different source.
00:21:48
Speaker 3: So we'll continue to watch.
00:21:50
Speaker 2: Today, trial I guess resumes nine am Eastern Time. Once again, they're in Massachusetts. We always appreciate you listening to us everyone. I made me roboch alongside t. J.
00:22:00
Speaker 3: Holmes. We'll talk so